Are architects not the perfect actors for building societies – preferably sustainable ones, also considering the social aspect of the term?

Our office has given it a try, in various contexts. On one occasion we proposed shared greenhouses as social spaces in a housing area, but the wish for increased density and larger private gardens soon displaced the project’s hothouses. The area has received positive attention as a low cost, low energy project, but we wonder what hindered the social intentions from having an impact on the solutions? As a colleague commented, “Social interaction today is limited to tolerating the clinking of the neighbour`s cocktails from the other side of the fence.”

At the same time, we observe how business interests in smaller cities fight the traces of urbanity that threaten to sneak in through architectural competitions. The municipalities` aim with the competitions is to generate growth. But the winning proposals` potential ability to do this is rarely obvious to the local shop owners, for whom parking capacity and profit are strongly connected. They adamantly state that they will not tolerate losing income on festival days, as visitors occupy customer parking lots. Local authorities, of course, pay great heed to these complaints, and parking often remains first priority in the village centers. One can`t really blame the municipalities, but who could convince the shop owner that the parking doesn’t have to happen right on their doorstep? That this way of organising the city works against a strategic densification and programming that might have generated functional public spaces beneficial for all shops in the area in the long run, not to mention the inhabitants?
As collective solutions are considered outdated and housing and city development need to pay off, our field has found new, ethical directions in which to concentrate its activity and engagement. Architects appropriate new, valuable knowledge about universal design, energy reduction and how to plan and build sustainably regarding the use of resources. With a common goal of a sustainable society, they propose solutions on how to implement this knowledge in architecture and urban planning. Volumes are reduced, solar collectors are projected onto strategically angled surfaces and there is an ongoing densification process around communication nodes. At the same time we regularly check that turning circles are sufficient, that the slopes are not too steep and that the project includes a balanced ventilation system with heat recovery, fulfilling the overall energy criteria.
Increasingly, there seems to be “correct answers” in our field. Has the project achieved the right kWh/m2/year, the project is considered interesting and well done. If, additionally, it is a pilot project on universal design, it is a clear choice for any guided tour of contemporary architecture and will be presented in magazines and on seminars. If, on top of this, the project can refer to use of life cycle analysis it is immediately also attractive for research.
But isn`t it so that, in a longer perspective, the criteria that are now defining what is good or bad in architecture are matter of course, self-evident truths? And doesn’t this applause of truisms mean that the society, when it comes down to handing out scholarships, prizes and commissions, runs the risk of being dominated by projects that from a more holistic perspective may be considered main stream, though clever, rather than exceptional and pioneering?
Many of today`s so called pilot projects seem to be specialised examples of technical solutions. At least this is how they are being presented.
Perhaps the production of the built environment is suffering from a “sustainable distraction”?

2
A socially more sustainable society calls for a holistic perspective.
Let us define a new kind of pilot projects, that do not primarily concentrate on fulfilling the rules and regulations of tomorrow and that don`t have to pay off – at least not to begin with.
Measurable qualities should not be the main focus – the aim would be to give room for projects that address creative alternative strategies for housing and city development – projects that provoke, trig curiosity, enthusiasm and debate, through focusing on the social (as well as even the aesthetical) potential in architecture.
One way of initiating a renaissance for communal solutions might be for the authorities to introduce a minimum size (percentage of total m2) for indoor shared space in new housing projects, area that does not have a direct affect on the sales price. Or one should make them count – prove their value. As these spaces offer relevant qualities for peoples everyday lives, one should think they could be integrated quite concretely in the overall sales picture.
Reintroduction of shared laundry facilities and cold rooms, as we recall from 20’s housing projects, is once again relevant, both economically and environmentally. Shared space for kids` homework, parties and common guestrooms could be introduced as a basic ingredient for new projects, demanded or encouraged through awards or subsidies. Similarly the authorities could encourage shared roof terraces, green houses, allotment gardens and even set a maximum size to private balconies (as opposed to the increasing minimum size introduced by real estate forces) – in order to encourage enlivening activity in the common outdoor space.
Self-building can be developed and applied for what it is – an invaluable way of achieving low cost housing, which also fosters a collective spirit and a sense of pride. This method would also draw attention to the astounding economical difference between the building costs and the market price of new homes.

3
The suggested investment in pilot and model projects could put the production of living environments in a critical perspective and also highlight what is otherwise taking place in the sector, with regard to speculation and a lack of focus on inquantifiable qualities.
Increased prioritizing of shared and communal solutions will undoubtedly generate increased friction between people. This can give rise to diverse and interesting results – on the one hand tension and conflict, on the other hand better functioning living environments and fruitful local processes – quite probably a better quality of life.